Theaetetus:/aside: they're actually great works of satire about human relationships, much like what we're talking about in this thread. They went over my head when I was in high school because I missed the fact that it's all very tongue in cheek - consider the very first sentences of Pride and Prejudice: "It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife.However little known the feelings or views of such a man may be on his first entering a neighbourhood, this truth is so well fixed in the minds of the surrounding families, that he is considered as the rightful property of some one or other of their daughters."It's really not being serious in the slightest.

Maybe I should try them again, then. I enjoyed Dickens much more at the time. My brain has had some time to mature since.

udhq:ciberido: No, her didn't want to be more than friends. "More than friends" means "friends and more." What he wanted was a girlfriend whom he had no interest in being friends with. That's LESS than friends.

No.

This could literally not be more wrong.

If you think a romantic relationship is simply friendship plus sex, then I offer my sincere condolences on the hand you have been dealt in your love life.

I fail to see why you added "simply" to that quote. You interpret "friends and more" to be "friendship plus sex", but in fact "more" doesn't literally translate to "sex" - sex is included but so are other aspects. So, you're arguing that he's wrong and then insult him and any previous partners he's had because you misinterpreted and pigeon-holed his quote into what you wanted him to be saying. Classy.

A good romantic relationship is based on a good friendship - if you're going to be that close to your significant other for any long period of time, you need to enjoy their company, and when you strip it down to basics, friendship is a mutual enjoyment of company and desire to interact in a social setting. Or at least that's what I think, and it's served me quite well so far. To have a romantic relationship you need to add layers to that of course, but I pity you if you can't just curl up on a couch with your partner now and then and laugh at the TV. Before you both get too distracted by each other and start to ignore the show, of course. Or some rope and a blindfold make it so one of you can't see the TV anymore, whatever floats your boat.

Magnanimous_J:Theaetetus: Magnanimous_J: Taught me a valuable lesson about being friends with women I wanted to date.

Is the lesson "actually be friends with them, rather than pretend to be their friend so you can nail them"?

No. The lesson learned was to be honest about the exchange of social currency. She was beautiful and I had a fair amount of money (for a college freshman anyway). I also had an imaginary connection to getting premium goods for cheap. I didn't actually have that, but that "connection" added to my social currency, in the same way that my knowing the owner of a hot new restaurant is social currency now.

The problem was we were negotiating the exchange of social currency for the wrong thing. She was willing to be my casual friend for free. Buying all those clothes allowed me to become a closer friend. The thing was, though, is that that friendship was meaningless to me. I wanted to date her. She probably knew that, and deflected it by offering me something that was worth less: her friendship in exchange for my money and business "connections." I of course thought that I could leverage that friendship into something more. It was a rookie mistake.

The lesson to take away is to be clear about what you are negotiating over. A woman is attracted to a man's ability as a provider and a high social standing among the tribe, it's science. So now, before I am willing to exchange my assets (my time and money) for hers (her beauty), I make sure we're on the same page. I don't want to hear about your problems, the dream you had last night, or how insensitive your boyfriend is unless you're willing to be a romantic partner for me. Otherwise, you're getting what you need out of our relationship and I'm getting nothing.

How is that fair?

As sucky as it was, it sounds as if you learned the right lesson from that earlier quasi relationship. Kudos!

Smackledorfer:Smelly Pirate Hooker: Of course they don't claim it. They just do it

I don't know if you have terrible reading comprehension or what, but I've reread your Boobies that I responded to and this new response to mine and I have no idea where the hell you are going with your post or why you think it has anything to do with either your Boobies or my response.

It is almost like you read neither your own words nor mine.

Thanks, this does make it a little more clear what your problems with women might be.

You know what you look like to me, with your clever quote and your cheap profile? You look like a liter. A well scrubbed, hustling liter with a little taste. Good education's given you some length of post, but you're not more than one generation from poor AOL trash, are you, Yogimus? And that accent you've tried so desperately to shed: pure Silicon Valley. What is your father, dear? Is he a LAN admin? Does he stink of exhaust fan? You know how quickly the boys found you... all that tedious sticky cybering in yahoo chatrooms... while you could only dream of getting out... getting anywhere... getting all the way to F.A.R.K.

gulogulo:udhq: don't think you'd be as interested as you claim in a synopses of a day in the life of my relationship with my ex-girlfriend, but if you're arguing that it doesn't happen, you're wrong. I've had relationships with women I didn't like personally, and relationships with women who I loved deeply that were good people but not at all curious about the world around them. I've made both "work" to varying degrees. Like I said, romance can cloud one's judgement.

Sometimes you find small, seemingly insignificant things you have in common, sometimes you find ways of avoiding meaningful communication altogether. In one case, I worked days and she worked nights, and so we hardly ever saw each other.

I'm not saying it's a good idea, but the possibility is not going to stop me from asking a women out on a date to whom I'm otherwise attracted.

Uh huh. So..tell me what the relationship is if you aren't talking to one another. How do you interact? What is it precisely that you do that still makes it a relationship rather than a roommate?

I don't understand what you're getting at. If you're trying to goad me into saying "sex", then, yes, that is a PART of it, but just a part. And there's nothing wrong with that. It's not extractive. It can become so, but so can any other aspects of a relationship. Case in point: for every man who thinks relationships are just about sex, there is a woman who thinks relationships are just about having a receptacle to dump your emotional garbage.

Like I said before, a romantic relationship is it's own unique entity, it can't be explained totally as the sum of it's parts. And if a person needs to have that explained to them, then they've never been in a real one

Smelly Pirate Hooker:Smackledorfer: Sure, but I wouldn't be insulted and pissy about it if a woman I didn't want was hitting on me. As you say she would have to do a better job to land me (well, not me, I've got pretty low standards :P ) but I would never feel upset at her for making an attempt.

If she started calling you at work, you might. If she showed up at your house, you definitely would. And if women murdered men in anywhere near the numbers that men murder women, you would feel threatened.

Why do men not understand this? Why do you not understand that almost all men (under the age of, say, 70) are inherently threatening (in that they could potentially pose a physical threat) to all women, regardless of age. No need to take it personally. It's just that many (most?) women don't feel like they can afford to give someone the benefit of the doubt. If they feel a creepy vibe (whether that is what's actually happening or not) the default response to this is "Get away as soon as possible and avoid in the future."

I'm sure many dudes have been on the receiving end of this and feel they were unjustly accused. Sorry. But if you want to blame somebody for that, you should probably start with the sex offenders who make this default position necessary (for those women trying to avoid legitimate rape).

me, "I wouldn't have a problem with people I wasn't attracted to hitting on me"

you, "you sure would if they were murderous raping stalkers!"

Wow, that was a useful addition to the discussion. Welcome to ignore, retard.

apoptotic:udhq: I've had relationships with women I didn't like personally

Why?

Attraction is a complicated thing, if I could quantify it, I would be a very wealthy man.

I mean, in some cases, I've been with women who couldn't hold a conversation because I valued their kindness over their intelligence, in others I've just found antagonism to be stimulating. I don't know how else to say it, but fighting, in a controlled manner, can be a lot of fun.

udhq:I don't understand what you're getting at. If you're trying to goad me into saying "sex", then, yes, that is a PART of it, but just a part. And there's nothing wrong with that. It's not extractive. It can become so, but so can any other aspects of a relationship. Case in point: for every man who thinks relationships are just about sex, there is a woman who thinks relationships are just about having a receptacle to dump your emotional garbage.

Like I said before, a romantic relationship is it's own unique entity, it can't be explained totally as the sum of it's parts. And if a person needs to have that explained to them, then they've never been in a real one

Tell me BESIDE SEX and CONSERVATION entails a relationship you are having with this person. Anyone who tells me they can't answer that because it's just too difficult to conceptualize is trying to blow a smoke screen. There should be some fairly concrete examples since you've done it before how a relationship devoid of meaningful communication works.

Smackledorfer:Smelly Pirate Hooker: Smackledorfer: Sure, but I wouldn't be insulted and pissy about it if a woman I didn't want was hitting on me. As you say she would have to do a better job to land me (well, not me, I've got pretty low standards :P ) but I would never feel upset at her for making an attempt.

If she started calling you at work, you might. If she showed up at your house, you definitely would. And if women murdered men in anywhere near the numbers that men murder women, you would feel threatened.

Why do men not understand this? Why do you not understand that almost all men (under the age of, say, 70) are inherently threatening (in that they could potentially pose a physical threat) to all women, regardless of age. No need to take it personally. It's just that many (most?) women don't feel like they can afford to give someone the benefit of the doubt. If they feel a creepy vibe (whether that is what's actually happening or not) the default response to this is "Get away as soon as possible and avoid in the future."

I'm sure many dudes have been on the receiving end of this and feel they were unjustly accused. Sorry. But if you want to blame somebody for that, you should probably start with the sex offenders who make this default position necessary (for those women trying to avoid legitimate rape).

me, "I wouldn't have a problem with people I wasn't attracted to hitting on me"

you, "you sure would if they were murderous raping stalkers!"

Wow, that was a useful addition to the discussion. Welcome to ignore, retard.

Smelly Pirate Hooker:Yes, I'm sure that the 15% or so of the people on Fark with vaginas are grateful to be identified as sluts or whores.

if you're really het up about people calling others slut, whore, or skank....guys in generally really aren't your target audience.

this isn't saying that no man has ever uttered the phrases in judgment, but...be damned if it isn't waaaaay overwhelmed by the number of women who make those judgments, and use those terms to do so. hell, you yourself used the phrase 'easy' to describe 'i like sex', when in men that condition is just 'normal'.

liking sex is good. it's how we're designed. there's nothing 'easy' or 'slutty' about it. but at the same time, acting like those are magic words you should actually give two shiats about is just as absurd.

As it's already been said, there's a lot of guys out there who persistently hit on any woman they can just to improve their odds that one will respond. I've met enough of them that I pretty much want to run anytime a guy says hello. Frankly I've probably blown off decent guys as a result but anything is better than having to tell someone I don't want to talk to them and getting called a biatch for it.

Also, don't be friends with a woman just because you hope that she will one day date you. That kind of crap only happens in movies. In reality you're dishonest and aren't truly her friend anyways.

udhq:apoptotic: udhq: I've had relationships with women I didn't like personally

Why?

Attraction is a complicated thing, if I could quantify it, I would be a very wealthy man.

I mean, in some cases, I've been with women who couldn't hold a conversation because I valued their kindness over their intelligence, in others I've just found antagonism to be stimulating. I don't know how else to say it, but fighting, in a controlled manner, can be a lot of fun.

I understand that attraction is complicated, but I don't understand how you end up in relationships with women you don't like. Are you leading these women to believe that you do like them, even though you don't? Or are you finding women that are so insecure that they'll say ok when you announce "I don't like you, but we should totally be in a relationship anyway"?

Maybe I should back up a step....what do you mean by the word "relationship"?

heap:Smelly Pirate Hooker: Yes, I'm sure that the 15% or so of the people on Fark with vaginas are grateful to be identified as sluts or whores.

if you're really het up about people calling others slut, whore, or skank....guys in generally really aren't your target audience.

this isn't saying that no man has ever uttered the phrases in judgment, but...be damned if it isn't waaaaay overwhelmed by the number of women who make those judgments, and use those terms to do so. hell, you yourself used the phrase 'easy' to describe 'i like sex', when in men that condition is just 'normal'.

liking sex is good. it's how we're designed. there's nothing 'easy' or 'slutty' about it. but at the same time, acting like those are magic words you should actually give two shiats about is just as absurd.

gulogulo:udhq: I don't understand what you're getting at. If you're trying to goad me into saying "sex", then, yes, that is a PART of it, but just a part. And there's nothing wrong with that. It's not extractive. It can become so, but so can any other aspects of a relationship. Case in point: for every man who thinks relationships are just about sex, there is a woman who thinks relationships are just about having a receptacle to dump your emotional garbage.

Like I said before, a romantic relationship is it's own unique entity, it can't be explained totally as the sum of it's parts. And if a person needs to have that explained to them, then they've never been in a real one

Tell me BESIDE SEX and CONSERVATION entails a relationship you are having with this person. Anyone who tells me they can't answer that because it's just too difficult to conceptualize is trying to blow a smoke screen. There should be some fairly concrete examples since you've done it before how a relationship devoid of meaningful communication works.

I'm sorry, but what exactly are you asking here? This is just getting progressively more incoherent.

I mean, are you asking for examples of what I do with women I'm dating? Because there's nothing out of the ordinary there; go out to dinner, go to movies. I did break into a zoo after hours once on a date, so we could take pictures of the animals. That one was a hoot.

If you're asking me for a broader definition of what a "romantic relationship" is, I'm afraid artists have been working on that one for 4000 years, and we're not going to crack that one in a fark thread. The closest I can come is that it's an indescribably shared state of being, a re-imaging of the day-to-day minutiae of one's life through the lens of the a common mind-space. If that doesn't work for you, try reading Shakespeare. Or is that just "trite and ridiculous fiction" as well?

Tommy Moo:Think of a club proprietor, the guy who goes around making sure everyone feels safe and everyone is having a good time.

I knew a gal who did this routinely, every time she went to the club. She seriously worked the room with "Hey, good to see you again!" and "Are ya havin' a good time?" creating as many acquaintances as possible, both male and female. If anybody responded "no" to that last question, she said "What can I do to fix that?" and went into problem-solving mode to help that person out -- whether it was buying them a drink, introducing them to some cute stranger across the room or just letting them vent for a few minutes about a rough day.

She got laid a LOT, despite being not typically "hot" (she was also quite overweight, to put it kindly). She was charming as hell and had tons of friends, too. The only remotely unflattering thing I ever heard said about her was that "she's got no concept of monogamy."

udhq:gulogulo: udhq: I don't understand what you're getting at. If you're trying to goad me into saying "sex", then, yes, that is a PART of it, but just a part. And there's nothing wrong with that. It's not extractive. It can become so, but so can any other aspects of a relationship. Case in point: for every man who thinks relationships are just about sex, there is a woman who thinks relationships are just about having a receptacle to dump your emotional garbage.

Like I said before, a romantic relationship is it's own unique entity, it can't be explained totally as the sum of it's parts. And if a person needs to have that explained to them, then they've never been in a real one

Tell me BESIDE SEX and CONSERVATION entails a relationship you are having with this person. Anyone who tells me they can't answer that because it's just too difficult to conceptualize is trying to blow a smoke screen. There should be some fairly concrete examples since you've done it before how a relationship devoid of meaningful communication works.

I'm sorry, but what exactly are you asking here? This is just getting progressively more incoherent.

I mean, are you asking for examples of what I do with women I'm dating? Because there's nothing out of the ordinary there; go out to dinner, go to movies. I did break into a zoo after hours once on a date, so we could take pictures of the animals. That one was a hoot.

If you're asking me for a broader definition of what a "romantic relationship" is, I'm afraid artists have been working on that one for 4000 years, and we're not going to crack that one in a fark thread. The closest I can come is that it's an indescribably shared state of being, a re-imaging of the day-to-day minutiae of one's life through the lens of the a common mind-space. If that doesn't work for you, try reading Shakespeare. Or is that just "trite and ridiculous fiction" as well?

Ok, you're being purposefully evasive. Surely you know the difference between dates and day to day of a long term relationship. You just refuse to answer because, I must assume, you can't without admitting you used people for sex that you did not actually like.

WordyGrrl:Tommy Moo: Think of a club proprietor, the guy who goes around making sure everyone feels safe and everyone is having a good time.

She got laid a LOT, despite being not typically "hot" (she was also quite overweight, to put it kindly). She was charming as hell and had tons of friends, too. The only remotely unflattering thing I ever heard said about her was that "she's got no concept of monogamy."

Am I right to assume that a lot of her gentlemen were how do we say: Attractive and Successful?

apoptotic:udhq: apoptotic: udhq: I've had relationships with women I didn't like personally

Why?

Attraction is a complicated thing, if I could quantify it, I would be a very wealthy man.

I mean, in some cases, I've been with women who couldn't hold a conversation because I valued their kindness over their intelligence, in others I've just found antagonism to be stimulating. I don't know how else to say it, but fighting, in a controlled manner, can be a lot of fun.

I understand that attraction is complicated, but I don't understand how you end up in relationships with women you don't like. Are you leading these women to believe that you do like them, even though you don't? Or are you finding women that are so insecure that they'll say ok when you announce "I don't like you, but we should totally be in a relationship anyway"?

Maybe I should back up a step....what do you mean by the word "relationship"?

I don't have any special definition of the word "relationship". I've had year-long cohabitations with women I didn't particularly like. They were each mutually rewarding in their own ways, and I never mislead or lied to anyone. Most of the time, the dislike was mutual, and it was almost always an unspoken understanding.

I'm surprised that this such a scandal. I guess I assumed lots of people have relationships with people they don't like, but then again, I guess I like a lot fewer people than the average person.

"Negging' is actually supposed to be mock-cruel flirtatiousness, not the actual viciousness women think it to be, and which women actually like to practice. Between humorous flirtatiousness and viciousness, which do you think both parties find more entertaining?

gulogulo:Ok, you're being purposefully evasive. Surely you know the difference between dates and day to day of a long term relationship. You just refuse to answer because, I must assume, you can't without admitting you used people for sex that you did not actually like.

What do mean by "used"? If I have a monogamous relationship with a woman that includes sex, and that relationship is either mutually antagonistic, or else inherently unequal, but otherwise mutually satisfying and based on totally honesty, what part of that do you not approve of?

If I'm being evasive, it's only because no can understand what the hell you are trying to ask.

Genevieve Marie:Fano: Exactly, and surprised to see Genevieve_Marie declare it as false out of hand. If you are completely unattracted to a person, you are already negative enough that you would ascribe terrible motives to them.

Maybe that's how it works for some people, but I don't think I've ever been like that personally. It's never bothered me when a guy I'm not attracted to flirts with me, as long as it's polite and not too intrusive.

The only problem I occasionally ran into when I was single was the guy who thought he'd be able to change my mind and make himself attractive to me if he tried hard enough. There was one guy that stepped so, so far out of line on that one. It still creeps me out when I think about it.

You would say this, instead of, "I enjoy being a coont towards many men for little or no reason, other than it makes me feel EMPOWERED; hahahaha HAAAAAA!!!"

This thread reminds me of all the times (many of them here on Fark!) white people tell black people there is no racism anymore and any opinion to the contrary is a figment of the black peoples' imagination or obvious lies.

Thank goodness the manly men are here to explain to all of us stupid biatches what we really say and do.

Smelly Pirate Hooker:Thank goodness the manly men are here to explain to all of us stupid biatches what we really say and do.

Well, if our entire personalities were dictated by the position of the moon and drug us from one polar extreme to the other all the time like a dog chained to bumper of the crazy-truck, we would need a little insight too.

As a guy I would like to point out that if the woman smiles at you then that is a good sign. It does not mean that she will be receptive to your advances, but the odds are much greater than if she frowned at you or simply looked away.

SkunkWerks:Repo Man: But my point, which I apparently didn't make well enough, is that what is pretty, and what is ugly is both subjective and objective

My point is that they're so mostly subjective that the 0.001% objective by volume doesn't really matter much.

Honestly, it doesn't.

Being aware it exists is mostly a matter of semantics, I suppose.

I disagree. Part of the problem is that there is so much agreement on what men find attractive. That makes attractive women a scarce thing, with a great deal of competition for the most attractive ones. Outliers who can be perfectly happy with women that most men would not be attracted to are really quite lucky. As Jimmy Soul - If You Want To Be Happy. I can't argue with the logic, just as Some Grey Bloke's logic is impeccable as in his clip, Sexually Frustrated.

Magnanimous_J:Well, if our entire personalities were dictated by the position of the moon and drug us from one polar extreme to the other all the time like a dog chained to bumper of the crazy-truck, we would need a little insight too.

Help me Fark, you're my only hope.I'm ugly and poor, and I've read all the relevant articles on creepiness, and so I try to stay as creep-free as possible. I make sure never to initiate a conversation with anyone that doesn't appear receptive in the first place; I never even begin conversation in a plane or on the street.

Magnanimous_J:WordyGrrl: Tommy Moo: Think of a club proprietor, the guy who goes around making sure everyone feels safe and everyone is having a good time.

She got laid a LOT, despite being not typically "hot" (she was also quite overweight, to put it kindly). She was charming as hell and had tons of friends, too. The only remotely unflattering thing I ever heard said about her was that "she's got no concept of monogamy."

Am I right to assume that a lot of her gentlemen were how do we say: Attractive and Successful?

Actually, she was gay, so no guys that I'm aware of. But some of her exes were very pretty gals.

Smelly Pirate Hooker:This thread reminds me of all the times (many of them here on Fark!) white people tell black people there is no racism anymore and any opinion to the contrary is a figment of the black peoples' imagination or obvious lies.

Thank goodness the manly men are here to explain to all of us stupid biatches what we really say and do.

You forgot the straight Farkers who tell us gay bandidos to stop making such a silly fuss over chicken sandwiches.

Pkoi:Help me Fark, you're my only hope.I'm ugly and poor, and I've read all the relevant articles on creepiness, and so I try to stay as creep-free as possible. I make sure never to initiate a conversation with anyone that doesn't appear receptive in the first place; I never even begin conversation in a plane or on the street.

Comsamvimes:I'm not bad looking, I'm just crushingly awkward and shy. Makes meeting girls very hard. And I have a very hard time telling when a girl is craving my wave.

I'm still reading through this topic, but this stood out, because...well, it's me in a nutshell.

There are times where I'll wonder if the girl I just passed who I could only glance at out of the corner of my eye awkwardly was genuinely intrigued by me and probably wondering why I didn't stop to talk to her. As for the confidence bit, well, there's a difference between looking in the mirror and thinking you're hot stuff and getting out in the world and still feeling the same way. I'm still trying to work on that, honestly. Couple that with the fact that I'm still a benchwarmer (so to speak) and, well...

/I really do believe that there's some beautiful, intelligent woman out there, perhaps in the same position as me//But in Baltimore? Farked if I know...

SkunkWerks:Repo Man: But my point, which I apparently didn't make well enough, is that what is pretty, and what is ugly is both subjective and objective

My point is that they're so mostly subjective that the 0.001% objective by volume doesn't really matter much.

Honestly, it doesn't.

Being aware it exists is mostly a matter of semantics, I suppose.

While peoples' perfect tens certainly vary, there is quite a bit of objectivity in the looks department (as measured by sociologists looking at spacing between eyes, symmetry, etc). Maybe the semantics here isn't whether things are objective or subjective, but rather whether or not that even matters: For the bulk of people anyone that would score a 9 or a 10 in their personal view is also going to be considered hot by almost everyone else. Call it subjective or objective as you like.